facebook, twitter, coming up the premiere of "life, liberty & levin," and see you next sunday when "the next revolution" will be televised. . mark: hello, america, i'm levin, this is "life, liberty & levin," and it is a great honor to have my friend walter williams on. >> hello. mark: for those of you who don't know walter, all three people, you are the distinguished professor of economics at george mason. know you as syndicated columnist, author, numerous books, essays,

libertarian/classical liberal, i would say. >> fairly right. mark: is that about right? >> and you write for town hall, jewish world review, hundreds of newspapers across america. let's jump right into this. let's start with fundamentals. let's start with the basics. how would you define liberty? >> well, i defined it as people being able to engage in peaceable, voluntary exchange without interference by others, and typically and now through mankind's history, liberty is not the normal state of affairs, that is throughout mankind's history, he's been subject to arbitrary abuse and control by others, and so the amount of liberties that americans have and perhaps western europe as well, the amount of it, is relatively rare in human kind, and i think that the danger that we face is

that some historian maybe 200 years from now, might be writing, look the normal state of affairs is arbitrary abuse and control by others, and there's this little tiny curiosity where, a relatively few people had a large amount of liberty for a short amount of time, but it all went back to the normal state of affairs. that is arbitrary abuse and control by others. mark: do you think liberty has the seeds of its own demise? that there's a paradox because people who are unwilling about liberty can use liberty to destroy liberty? >> that is absolutely right. they can use liberty to destroy liberty. they can use the -- if you look at totalitarians around the world, they always start at they are for free speech. that is because they need free

speech to get their foot in the door, but after their foot is in the door, they want to eliminate free speech, and you see this all the time. you will see this all over the world, and beginning to see it in the united states, that is in berkeley, the seed of the free speech movement, but now at berkeley, they don't want any free speech whatsoever. so, again, i think that we have to be very, very concerned because we're losing our liberty, and if you asked the question, which way are we moving, tiny steps at a time, are we headed towards more personal liberty or towards more government control over our lives? it would have to be unambiguously the latter. mark: when i was about 20 years old, my father and i visited a center by the name of paul alan greenspan -- paul agsalt.

every day congress meets we lose a little bit of our liberty. it wasn't supposed to be that way. the american people largely do not like politicians. the american people largely do not like congress, and all the polls come through, congress rates it very low, but it seems like when there's a problem, there's a big percentage of the american people on health care or housing or gun laws or what have you, they immediately say government should do something, they don't trust the bureaucracy, don't trust washington, don't trust congress, but government should do something, how do you explain that paradox? >> i think there's the temptation among all humans to want to live at the expense of somebody else. that is, the american people, and it's sad to say this, is that the american people love to live at the expense of somebody else. that is, whether it be farmers, they want the farm subsidies,

poor people, food stamps, business bailouts. let's say the case of a farmer, if the farmer is having trouble and if he comes and puts a gun to me and says give me your money, he's going to go to jail. but if he goes washington and gets a congressman to write a law enabling the irs to take my money, he doesn't go to jail. so what people like to use government to do things that if they did the same thing, they would go to jail. so what i'm saying is people like to use the government to legalize theft. mark: and what's interesting about that too is it's defined as compassionate. in other words, using government, the law, the power of government to take something from someone and give it to somebody else. or to take something from a generation that's not yet born. we have $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities, $21 trillion fiscal operating debt. a trillion dollar deficit this

year. they just voted one of the massive budgets in american history, the republicans did, the president signed it. three generations from now, two generations from now, those kids have to deal with this. when it comes to their own children and grandchildren do you think parents who love their children and grandchildren delude themselves into thinking that's them, that's the ambiguous future generation, my kids will be fine? what's the mind-set there? >> i think -- here's the problem is that the big collapse will not come until 2030 or 2040, and any congressman who will take steps now to prevent the big collapse, he's going to be thrown out of office. that is, the major big problem in our spending is social security and medicare. any congressman talking about doing something about social security, doing something about medicare, he's going to be run out of office. and by the people who are over

65 who vote in large numbers. we have to ask ourselves the question: is it reasonable for us to expect a politician to do what he considers to be political suicide? i think no. it's unreasonable for us to expect that of a politician, so our politicians are running -- a congressman, his time horizon is two years, not 15 or 20 years. it's two years, and so that's what we have to live with. mark: so that is a circular problem, then, because these people will continue to do what they're doing, these politicians. in fact they grab more and more power from the private sector, from the individual, and yet they don't have the ability either because of the public or because of their own lack of will to do what needs to be done 20, 30, 40 years out. >> that's right. mark: so what happens to our country? >> well, people will say what

can we do? i ask are the american people as human beings, are we any different from the spanish? the portuguese? the french? the british? great empires of the past who went down the tubes for doing roughly what we're doing, bread and services, maybe we're not that different, and maybe we're going to share the same future as the other great empires of the past. keep in mind, we have betrayed the founding fathers of our country. if you look at federalist paper 45 when james madison is riding federalist paper 45, he was trying to convince the citizens of new york to ratify the constitution and they were afraid to ratify the constitution, and he said the powers that we delegated to the federal government are few and well defined, and restricted mostly to external affairs.

powers left with the people in the state are indefinite and numerous. if you turn that upside down, have you what we have now, the powers of the federal government are indefinite and numerous. mark: would you -- to follow up your point, a post constitutional period? it's not really a federal republic since the states live at the behest of the federal republic. have you this massive administrative state with 2 million civil servants, bureaucrats and not really a constitutional republic when five individuals on the court can decide, in a 5-4 vote, if something is fundamental or not fundamental? or decide not to nationalize an issue and there's no recourse. what kind of a government is this right now? >> we're moving towards totalitarianism. that is i'm not saying we're a totalitarian nation yet, but which way are we headed? tiny steps at a time. more government control over our lives or more liberty? and it's the latter, more

government control over our lives. and so -- and the tragic thing about this is that the american people have contempt for the united states constitution. contempt and ignorance because any politician who decided to uphold and defend the united states constitution, he would not get elected to office by the american people. that is -- if he says, look, nowhere in the constitution is there authority for the federal government to be involved in education. so if you send me to washington, i'm not going to bring back billions of dollars in aid to higher education because it's not in the constitution. he'd be run out of town. mark: do you think, then, that progressivism, this anti-constitutional, anti-republic ideology, borne of, in my opinion, russo and

haggle, marx and their progeny, dewey, crowley, wilson, you think they've succeeded? >> well, the jeffersonians and anti-federalists, they have not succeeded, so the progress i have succeeded very well. the wilsonian objectives or vision is hard set in our economy. or if you look at communist manifesto written by marx and engels, if y look at the things that they want, the ten things they nted, we've accomplished it in our country. mark: and so there are people out there, the tea party movement, the old reagan revolution, constitutional conservatives, i talk to them every day on my radio show. they say what can we do about this? what can we do about this? i initially was strongly

opposed to article 5, convention of states, and i studied it, studied the history behind it, i studied the george mason proposed it, two days before the end of the constitutional convention. that madison stood up and supported it, that madison argued for it when there was this nullification effort taking place, and this is a movement, millions of people supporting it, it's a very difficult movement, it's in the constitution, rather than amending the constitution through congress which mason said would one day be a oppressive, it needs to be controlling the government. the state legislatures get together, it's a convention of states, it's a meeting. they used to have meetings. send delegates, they come up with ideas and send them through the same ratification process, which is very difficult, 38 states have to

ratify. i've gotten behind this because i've concluded, the supreme court's constantly rewriting the constitution. presidents are rewriting the constitution, everybody is rewriting the constitution. >> or ignoring it. mark: or ignoring it. how about we put the government back in a box, and if there is a way to do that, it's either that way or i can't think of any other way? >> well, i worry about that because if we have a constitutional convention. mark: it's called convention of state. >> it's called convention of states. well, who are the kind of people who are going to be there? it's not going to be benjamin franklin. it's not going to be george mason. mark: but here's the thing -- >> but it's going to be people like nancy pelosi. mark: nancy pelosi may be there, but she won't be there from kansas. the problem now is we don't have any of those men or women on the supreme court, or in congress, or in any court, and so it was those men and women

who decided, or men, at the constitutional convention that there needed to be a valve. i encourage people to take a serious look at this. >> the article 5. mark: the article 5. there's a lot of talk of fearmongering, but the difficulty is getting it done. . when we come back, i want to ask but socialism, which seems to be very popular these days. ladies and gentlemen, just so you know, every week night you can watch me on levin tv by going to crtv.com or giving us a call at 844-levin-tv. we'd love to see you there. in the modern world, it pays to switch things up. you can switch and save time. [cars honking] [car accelerating] you can switch and save worry. ♪ you can switch and save hassle. [vacuuming sound] and when you switch to esurance, you can save time, worry, hassle and yup, money.

in fact, drivers who switched from geico to esurance saved hundreds. so you might want to think about pulling the ol' switcheroo. that's auto and home insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call. my shoulders carry more they carry my community's pride my family's pride and pride in myself because shoulders were made for greatness not dandruff ♪ burned me up and down, shno way to cool it. ♪ ♪ ♪ every time you kiss me it's like sunshine and whiskey ♪ applebee's handcrafted burgers. any burger just $7.99. now that's eatin good in the neighborhood.

we all want to know you know, the new, new thing. with xfinity's retail stores, you can now see the latest. want to test drive the latest devices?

be our guest. want to save on mobile? just ask. want to demo the latest innovations and technology? do it here. come see how we're making things simple, easy, and awesome. plus come in today and ask about xfinity mobile, a new kind of network designed to save you money. visit your local xfinity store today. . mark: walter williams, let me ask but socialism. you know bernie sanders is out there pushing socialism. they don't call it socialism because they know that word's not popular. that's what it is. they're pushing some form of socialism. free college, free health care, they talk about scandinavia. does socialism create wealth and opportunity and success? >> we might first start off with what is socialism? mark: yeah. >> and socialism or communism

is government ownership and/or control over the means of production, and in that sense, we have a lot of socialism already in our country, and we find people asking for more of it. but if you look around the world, if you look around the world, and you ask in what countries are people better off? let's say you have the higher per capital income, and that is if you can rank countries towards countries on the free market end of the spectrum towards it, and countries on towards the socialist end of the spectrum, you find that those countries towards the free market are people and richer. something else that is remarkable, if you rank countries according to freedom of house or amnesty international, you find greater protections of personal liberty in those countries towards the free market or the capitalist end of the economic spectrum,

and if you want to find poverty and abuse and human rights violations, you find them in the socialist/communist countries, all over the world. so anybody asking for socialism in our country, they're really asking for us to be less free, and we have quite a large amount of socialism right now. we're not nearly as free as individuals as we used to be. and just one argument here is that the founding fathers of our country, they went to war with the most powerful nation on the face of the earth because they did not want to work two weeks for king george, but you and i, we're working four months out of the year in order to pay taxes. so -- >> do you think part of the problem here is branding, marketing, lack of articulate conservatives along many of the political leaders, the

republican party are on the right -- i mean, i really hear them talk about first principles, individualism, liberty, you know, we talk about millennials, so many of them are liberal, but also in many respects anti-authority. and we don't explain our ideas and our philosophies. when i hear republican leaders in congress talk, they're talking like they are gs 13's at the department of education or whatever. the left is pushing their ideology, which i'd like your opinion on this, i think this is dressed up as populism. but about sensationalism and iron-fisted control. so-called republicans and conservatives don't counter this stuff. am i right? >> i think you are absolutely right. the real job that we have that confronts us is to somehow be able to sell our fellow americans on the moral superiority of personal liberty. we have to convince our fellow

americans on the moral superiority of personal liberty and the main ingredient which is limited government. you know, the average american, he hides the kind of tyranny from himself. you know, for example, let's say that there's an elderly lady down the street, she can't mow her lawn, she doesn't have enough money to pay somebody to mow her lawn and you ask the average american would you support the government forcing someone to go down and mow her lawn each week? you'd say no, we wouldn't do that, or would you say we support somebody going down at the end of each week and pulling money out of their wallet to give her money? no. what if we all put our money in the government pot, and the government sends money out to this lady. oh, they say, well, that's okay. but all these three examples i just gave involve the forcible

use of one person to serve the purposes of somebody else. but that's what the american people want. too many of us want that. forcible use of one person to serve somebody else. that is a very good working definition of slavery. mark: well, you know, when you bring up the founders of this country, the left immediately talks about slave owners, that they were slave owners, but first of all, all of them weren't, some of them were, some of them owned slave and wanted to get rid of the whole notion of slavery, but they couldn't. and abraham lincoln talks about this, the great 1858 speech debate with douglas, and i want to know your opinion of this. he said these are the men that wrote the declaration of independence. not a word of slavery in there. not a word about race in there. they left it to their children

and their grandchildren to try and resolve what they could not resolve. how do you answer this? >> well, i think first of all, we need to recognize that slavery has been mankind's normal state of affairs for centuries. matter of fact, the word slave comes from slavs, the first slaves am the africans were the last people to be enslaved and turns out also the western world most notably great britain, france and the united states paid a huge cost to get rid of slavery. where by in other parts of the world, slavery still exists today in some places in the middle east, but the west, they made a great effort to get rid of slavery and also we make many quotations from the founders that they looked at slavery as an abomination, but we could not have been a

nation, we could not have had the ratification of the constitution without allowing the south to maintain slavery. mark: that's an excellent point. in other words, if there hadn't been a union, i guess there hadn't have been a civil war. obviously one of therimary purposes of the civil war was to eliminate slavery, 700,000 casualties. i find it interesting that this will be raised -- and it's a dark mark on american history, we understand that. but many of the people who raise it then excuse the 100 million deaths resulting from marxism which you pointed out earlier. >> yes, yeah. mark: and they push an ideology that is proginy is progressivism. progressivism is it not part and parcel of that ideology? >> that's right, and communism accounts for the greatest

destruction of human life. that is, hitler did not compare to stalin and mao tse-tung. >> in numbers. >> in numbers. mark: the third reich, our communism, whether it is stalin or mao or whatever, they are ideologies run amok and the point of the constitutional system is to ensure government is limited so that the people are as free as they possibly can be. in order to avoid circumstances like that, correct? >> you are absolutely right, yes. mark: all right. when we return, i want to ask dr. williams about the gun debate that's going on today. our bill of rights and what he thinks about it. heartburn. no one burns on my watch! try alka seltzer ultra strength heartburn relief chews. with more acid-fighting power than tums chewy bites. mmmmm...amazing. i have heartburn. ultra strength from alka seltzer.

enjoy the relief. oh, that's lovely...so graceful. the corkscrew spin, flawless... ...his signature move, the flying dutchman. poetry in motion. and there it is, the "baby bird". breathtaking. a sumo wrestler figure skating? surprising. what's not surprising? how much money heather saved by switching to geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more. this is frank. sup! this is frank's favorite record. this is frank's dog. and this is frank's record shop. frank knowns northern soul, but how to set up a limited liability company... what's that mean?

not so much. so he turned to his friends at legalzoom. yup! they hooked me up. we helped with his llc, contracts, and some other stuff that's part of running a business. so frank can focus on the beat. you hear that? this is frank's record shop. and this is where life meets legal. if you have moderate to severe or psoriatic arthritis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop.

some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. other side effects include upper respiratory tract infection and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ♪ otezla. show more of you.

progeny. mark: walter williams, we have this debate that goes on after the mass murders, and i'm watching the news with great trepidation. we're not really getting facts, we're not getting information, we get it initially and then really the media turn on a dime and we're in a debate about the 2nd amendment. and what i'm noticing about this, really, this debate over the 2nd amendment, i'm curious on your thoughts on this is debate over the 1st amendment. gun control, but they also want debate control because people

who dare to say wait a minute, maybe localities ought to figure this out, maybe there ought to be police in the schools, maybe washington doesn't have the answers, you know, you want to out all weapons, whatever, this free-flowing debate, many of our universities, it's nonexistent now or it's limited. i'm noticing the more media we have, the more group think that's being promoted. what do you think about that? >> i think that americans need to be educated why the founders of our nation gave us the 2nd amendment in the first place, and they gave us the 2nd amendment not to do duck hunting and not to do deer hunting and to protect our houses. they explicitly said they want us to have arms to protect ourselves against abuse of government. mark: what you said is factually historically true,

and yet it's crazy to the left and to the media. >> that is absolutely right. but even another question about the gun control in terms of reducing the crime, you have to keep in mind that guns are inanimate objects. one can put a gun right here and it can be there for a century and it's not going to do anything. now, the people who are arguing for gun control as a way to reduce these slaughter that we see in the united states, they're kind of saying it with cars, if 30 people are killed each day by drunk drivers in our country, so what do you want to do? you want to have car control? or turns out that rifles kill roughly -- rifles and shotguns are used to kill about 550 people each year, according to the fbi statistics, but in

terms of knives, knives and people are -- knives are responsible for about 1500 deaths a year. so what do you want? knife control? if you use the same reasoning that people use about guns to cars and knives, you have background checks in order for you to go buy a knife, or background check to buy a car. i think what we fail to realize is that what has happened to our society in terms of morality, and keep in mind, that today it's more difficult to get a gun or rifle than it has ever been in our country. that is, if you look in the sears and roebuck catalog of i think it's 1908, there are 35 pages of sales of guns, and what do you with the sears catalog, you send your money and they sent you a gun. or walk in a hardware store and buy a gun.

or for a long time, a birthday present for a 12-year-old or 14-year-old from his father was a .22 rifle. schools had gun shooting clubs, and so you say, well, you might say, well, what has happened to guns between now -- between 1920 and today? what are guns doing differently? well, guns aren't doing anything differently. you have to ask the question, what has happened to people since the 1920s? and what there's been, there's been a decline in morality, so this is what you find happening all over our country, and to have -- to say we want gun control in order to protect our kids in their schools, that's plain nonsense. mark: and yet it's being pushed. it's almost monopolizing the debate, and then i have to shut it off. i see guests who come on who have a different point of view, and they're shut down.

i see at least one cable channel, cnn, had this event the other night, with marco rubio and others who were shouted down because they don't go for gun control. the host used to work for one of the handgun control organizations. that was never told. whether it's climate change or abortion, gun control, it seems to me we're always debating on the grounds and the terms set by the left. why is that? >> i think it's very popular. i think that the left is very, very effective at selling their point of view to the american people than the right or libertarians or conservatives. that is, we're not as good with messaging as the left. the left appears so caring, and whereby, the right does not appear as caring, what we have to do, we have to be able to

sell the moral superiority of personal liberty and just morality in general. we have to do a better job of doing it. mark: do you think there are enough of us left who are willing to do it? i don't see a lot of them in congress, i can tell you that. >> you don't see a lot of them on college campuses either. mark: all right. ladies and gentlemen, don't forget during the weekdays, you can watch levin tv on crtv.com, join us there or call 844-levin-tv. that's 844-levin-tv. we'd love to see you.

>> live from america's news headquarters, i'm kelly wright in washington. dozens of corporations are cutting ties with the nra following the recent school shooting in florida. to insurance and banking

institutions are saying they will no longer offer discounts and perks to nra members, then the nra lashed out in response criticizing the companies for punishing members and calling the move a, quote, shameful display of political and civic cowardice. at least four people are injured in a building explosion in the uk about 100 miles north of london. not clear what caused it but police say there's no reason to believe this is related to terrorism. first responders are calling it a major incident and are treating it as a search-and-rescue operation. i'm kelly wright, now back to "life, liberty & levin". . mark: walter williams, here's what confuses me a little bit. you go into a grocery store today, they're mega stores. you can get anything from

anywhere, not just the united states. all over the world. all kinds of meats, poultry, fish. you know, if you have certain types of illnesses or allergies, a whole section for that. a whole hippy section over there, wines from all over the country, all over the world. ten different types of bread. five different types of hot dog buns. ten different types of hot dogs. that's available to any person in the united states. there aren't people on the face of the planet who have ever lived like we live. kings, queens, emperors, ever. we want to travel across the country, we get annoyed if our plane is delayed for an hour or two, we get on a plane, it's air-conditioned, heated, whatever it is. you are fairly comfortable. we complain about tight spaces and so on and so forth. fly from the east coast to the

west coast in five hours. again, never before in human history, and yet capitalism, liberalism, liberty, get this, if i wake up at 2:00 in the morning, i can go to 7-eleven and buy pretty much what i need. if you have an illness and need a drug you get it the same day or the next day. how can we explain, all americans have access to these things that the vast majority of us live in the lap of luxury created by us. >> that's right. mark: and our ancestors, yet it goes absolutely unnoticed. >> i think, and matter of fact, that is the even poor people in our country today, they have more than kings of yesteryear, they have air-conditioning, microwave ovens. mark: tvs, cars. >>, et cetera, et cetera, i think all this riches, it's a fruit of capitalism and it's a

fruit of human ingenuity. you know sometimes i ask my students, i'll say how come george washington did not have a cell phone? i mean, he could have benefitted immensely from having a cell phone to stay in contact with his troops. well, i'll tell them, all the material around -- to make a cell phone was around at the time of george washington. it was also around the time of the cave man. but what's different? what was different and why do we have cell phones today and george washington didn't? it has to do with the human brain. human ingenuity. human beings being free to explore things. that's why we have -- that's why we enjoy the riches that are unprecedented in human history. it's the human brain allowed to be free to do those things. and lying at the root of it is

people's desire to have more of something. that is, in a free market system, the way have you more of something is to please your fellow man. why is bill gates so rich? he didn't take your money, he didn't rob you. what he did is found a way to please you. found a way to please millions and millions of people, and they voluntarily plunked down $400 for his windows. or you look at ford when he -- made the model t. he did something to please his fellow man. he enabled his fellow man to be able to buy a cheaper car. so that's the root of our richness. the human mind and the desire for each of us to want to have more for ourselves and in a free market system, the way that you get more for yourself is by pleasing your fellow man.

prior to capitalism, the way that people became rich was through plundering and enslaving their fellow man, but the free market made it possible for people to amass huge amounts of wealth by serving and pleasing their fellow man. mark: and socialism, communism we've been talking about destroying that entire market. >> oh, yes. mark: destroys that entire initiative? >> that's right, absolutely. >> and socialism and communism are about redistribution, right? >> right. mark: they're not about creating wealth and that? >> taking from some people and giving to other people. mark: right, when we come back i want to ask you about the word equality? what did the framers and founders mean by equality? does it mean what it means today? and can you have a free people if the pursuit of those people is equality?

when we come back. i am totally blind. and non-24 can make me show up too early... or too late. or make me feel like i'm not really "there." talk to your doctor, and call 844-234-2424. ♪ wild thing ♪ applebee's handcrafted burgers. any burger just $7.99. now that's eatin good in the neighborhood. [thud] [screaming & crying] ♪ [screaming & crying] ♪ [screaming & crying] [phone ping] with esurance photo claims, you could have money for repairs within a day... wow! that was really fast. huh. ...so it doesn't have to

hurt for long. hmm. that's insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call.

. mark: professor williams, equality, we hear it all the time. wage equality, or income

inequality, and it is spoken of as if the government should step in and make sure people are on the same playing field. is that what the framers meant by equality? >> no, i don't think so. i think it was put best by my late colleague and very, very famous economist milton friedman. he said that those people who put equality before liberty are not likely to have much of either, but those people who put liberty before equality are likely to have a large measure of both. and so when people talk about inequality, inequality of income, in a free society, the reason why there's inequality of income is because one person satisfies his fellow man more than another. but then there are other issues

that produce inequality that's caused by government, such as occupational licensing laws. say like in new york city at one time to own and operate one taxi, you had to go out and buy a medallion, a license that cost $700,000. that has the effect of denying people the right to get in the taxicab business, and these taxicab owners, they'll pay politicians through political contributions to keep such a restriction. so i think what we need to do, we need to make sure that there's -- what some people call a level playing field, that each person has a right to pursue his own objectives without interference by others. mark: and isn't that the point of the constitution, which basically says, okay, government, this is what you're involved in. the founders were saying, look, equality, meaning we want to be

treated the same way under the lawsa everybody else. we don't want to be targeted by the crown or mistreated. equality, you should be treated the same in our justice system regardless of race, weight, height, as best as we can do in a perfect world, but you can't possibly have equality, can you, when you have individual human beings in a relatively free society pursuing their own interests? some people may work harder than others, smarter than others. as you point out some people produce more things that more people want, and yet again, we get bogged down in this debate about this anti-capitalist argument with equality. >> and the only kind of equality that is consistent with liberty is equality before the law. any pursuit of any other equality is inconsistent with liberty. mark: look at the harshest of police state regimes that

continue to refrn liberty and individualism out of society in the name of the people and equality. they're still not equal. >> or equally oppressed. mark: yeah, yeah, they're dirt-poor and starving to death. that's the equality we can live without. >> that's right. >> we'll be right back.

...

♪ ♪ohhhhhh, ou! guess what i just got? uh! ♪i used to be spellbound hello again. ♪i used to be spellbound hi. ♪i used to be spellbound that's a big phone. ♪in your arms. [screams] ah, my phone. ♪you built the flame ♪that warms my heart, ♪but lying and cheating ♪has torn us apart ♪and i'm moving on. yep, and my teeth are yellow. i mean i knew they weren't perfect, but, ugh.

oh well, all hope is lost! oh thanks! clearly my whitening toothpaste is not cutting it. time for whitestrips. crest glamorous white whitestrips are the only ada-accepted whitening strips proven to be safe and effective. they work below the enamel surface to whiten 25x better than a leading whitening toothpaste. hey, nice smile! thanks! i crushed the tissue test! yeah you did! crest. healthy, beautiful smiles for life. when you think of miami you think of,you know,rich,glamour but 5 miles away from the beach there's people who have never seen a beach. i was confused why somebody was in this situation especially in america. ♪music:oooh,oooh,oooh so when i started joshua's heart foundation it was a key thing to be able to engage youth in the foundation. to help them participate. ♪music:oooh,oooh,oooh i think passing on the torch and lighting a new flame in another person to do good is probably the point of the bigger missions i have. ♪music:aha,aha,aha

so we are each making a bigger difference. ♪music:oooh,oooh,oooh that's it! just giving back and producing love for everybody. mark: doctor williams, what do you see is the fate of the united states? >> well, i am hoping that we can recover our instinct for personal liberty which requires limited government. it does not look very, very optimistic right now but unless we grab the reins of personal

liberty we will be like the other great empires of the past. back in 1887 someone said during queen victoria's jubilee that britain would become the third great nation and almost defeated on the high seas by six great nation, you would have been put into the insane asylum. mark: argentina. >> that's absolutely right. i am hoping that doesn't our future as a nation but we have to get busy now for going to save ourselves from the fate of other great empires in the past we need to get busy now with selling our fellow americans on the moral superiority of personal liberty and the main ingredient, limited government. mark: and we need to make the case for fellow citizens, right? not enough people make the case. >> tha right. mark: for americanism. that's the bottom line. >> that's right six it's been an

absolute pleasure to have you on and to educate me in the rest of the country. pleasure. thank you for joining us on life, liberty and live in. i hope you join us next time. god bless. stop? >> that's the way these independent-counsel things work. you're appointed to do "a," and you wind up to "z." >> we, as counsel for monica lewinsky, have reached an agreement today. >> the last person to talk to is president clinton. >> the blue dress made it impossible for the president to deny that he had had some sexual contact. >> indeed, i did have a relationship with ms. lewinsky that was not appropriate. >> i was heartbroken. >> i knew he was in real trouble. >> if you have substantial and credible evidence that may constitute grounds for an impeachment, you shall refer that to the house. >> ken starr decided we're going