For quite a while I have been bothered bothered by the hypocrisy of Bill Maher. He claims to be a libertarian, yet more recently supports collectivist solutions to societal problems. He seems to be libertarian in social matters, but considerably liberal in economic and fiscal matters. Sure, he is at times humorous, and graduated from Cornell with an English degree. As such, I am sure that as I question the weak foundations upon which he builds many of his economic positions, he could spend a great deal of time correcting my inappropriate use of grammar. Never one to stifle individual expression, I have heard many of his positions and wished that I had the opportunity to systematically call into question the philosophical concepts that drive his opinions. What is lost in his superficially witty repartee is that rarely is there any substance or factual support for his claims.
In a recent interview with Jay Leno, Bill Maher made several comments that displayed common hypocrisies among today's collectivists. Here are a few of the comments and their hypocrisy.
Despite making his living moderating a forum for opposing views, Maher was confused by the fact that while both Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh were guests on the show, both received roughly the same applause. With both representing different parts of the political spectrum, it should not be shocking to Maher considering President Obama won the election with 52% of the popular vote. Collectivists do not understand why anyone would or should oppose their views.
Maher said, "If you voted for a guy who wouldn't give you health care as opposed to one who would, you should have your head examined." It is the collectivists view that government gives. Government can only give you that which it forcibly takes from someone else. This is why so many of our politicians have such a pitiful record of charitable giving. Many, especially collectivists, view government taxation to be charitable giving as it is the government's responsibility to forcibly redistribute wealth in the name of fairness. This concept is the driving force behind the ever expanding call for government spending.
Maher at one point said that the Democrats should brand their solution to the health care coverage problem as "Medicare for all". Please Mr. Maher, continue. This is exactly why I have always told my students that opposition speech should never be stifled. Just like President Obama stated that the government "option" is a great idea by making an analogy to the nearly bankrupt USPS lagging behind FedEx and UPS, Mr. Maher's position is to tell everyone that they will be steered toward something akin to a currently failing government run single payer option. With philosophical enemies like you, who needs allies. (For a rational solution view my blog Joint Underwriter's Association: The Simple Answer 07/19/09)
Maher then went on the tangent of demonizing those who oppose the estate tax by saying, "This is a tax on rich dead people. These are the perfect people to tax. One, they don't have any need for money on account of that whole being dead thing." Again superficially witty, but devoid of reason. Yes, the collectivist does not believe that one has the right to private property in life. The government may allow them to keep it for a while, but we must punish those who do not spend what they accrue with the intent of bettering their own families' lot in life. It is a means of insuring multi-generational control.
Yet Maher's continued popularity is due to what I refer to as our "Style over Substance" culture. Our culture accepts the words of Hollywood celebrities over that of learned economists. After all, economists are boring as they cite history and the cause/effect of economic principles. Our teachers are being told to be more entertaining, rather than challenging in the classroom. It seems that fewer people take the time to read, research or even question the consistency of adhering to the very concepts of individual freedoms and the corresponding responsibilities that come with these freedoms. In a culture where responsibility is avoided, it is easy, popular and even cool to espouse that it is somehow a government responsibility to take a paternal role in controlling more aspects of citizens' lives. Yet, Bill Maher and Michael Moore have successfully provided services to this market and accumulated great wealth. I don't disparage this. However their hypocrisy shows when they disparage those who have invested time, effort, research and money into education and professional development for profiting from the important services that they provide.
