Video Video Audio Transcripts Pictures
Radio interview
Alan Keyes on the Rick Koerber Show (KTKK), The Free Capitalist
June 20, 2006
Salt Lake City, UT

GABRIEL JOSEPH (SUBSTITUTE HOST): I am the Free Capitalist's sidekick, the Invisible Ham. My name is Gabriel Joseph.

KEYES: Hi, Gabriel.

JOSEPH: It's a pleasure to have you on the air with us here today. Thank you very much.

KEYES: You're welcome.

JOSEPH: You know, let me just introduce you to some of our listeners. I doubt that there's anybody listening to us that actually hasn't heard of you, but for those who are listening to us for the time and are converting to capitalism or to, you know, non-socialism. I guess I would say.

KEYES: [chuckle]

JOSEPH: Let me just kind of give a run down for our listenership real quick. If listenership is even a word.

Mr. Keyes has a PhD in government from Harvard and wrote his dissertation on Constitutional Theory. That's a good plus around us and our camp here, I suppose.

He served as interim President of Alabama A&M University in 1991.

Speaks French and has studied Spanish, Russian, and ancient Greek.

And is the author of a few books--one being "The Master of the Dream: The Strength and Betrayal of Black America," published in 1995, I believe. Is that correct, Sir?

KEYES: I believe that's right.

JOSEPH: Excellent. Also, an author of another book entitled, "Our Character; Our Future: Reclaiming America's Moral Destiny," published in 1996.

Wife, Jocelyn, and father of three.

Again, this is Mr. Alan Keyes. Thank you once again for being with us.

KEYES: Oh, I'm glad to be with you.

JOSEPH: Before we get into kind of . . . I've done a little bit of research and trying to understand your position on a couple of different issues and principles, etc., but Mr. Keyes, why don't you just tell our listeners what it is that you've been up to lately, what it is that you stand for, and kind of who you are?

KEYES: Well, I've been very much involved over the course of--oh, I guess it's a decade or more now--in working with people who are trying to defend the survival of American self-government, the survival of our Republic and our Constitutional institution. I have waged that battle on the moral front where I think we are in danger of going down paths that will destroy the moral foundations and the foundations of family and character and responsibility and self-discipline that are necessary for liberty to be both valued, defended, and for it to function properly.

And I have also been trying to do it institutionally in terms of getting people to understand, for instance, the abuses that are occurring in our judiciary and what can be done to restore real Constitutional self-government in this country, rather than defer to these judges.

And I also think we are now faced with an immediate crisis that I've been involved with quite a bit with the Minutemen and other groups trying to wake people up to the reality of what is going on in terms of the abandonment by our political elites of the security of our borders and the need to restore that security in order to lay the foundations for any rational policies with respect to immigration and really preserving the future and the quality of life in this country. So, those are the things that have been keeping me busy for quite some time in various ways.

JOSEPH: Excellent. You know that's certainly a mouthful. It sounds like you are anxiously engaged in many good causes from what it is that you've just said.

Let's talk about . . . and by the way, I have two things. Number one, Rick Koerber who is the host of this show, a very good friend of mine, entrepreneur here in the state of Utah and other states around the country. He is a huge, huge fan, as well as I am, Sir. And I want to say that he's in Wyoming right now with a family crisis. He regrets that he wasn't able to be here or on the phone. He's just dealing with doctors, hospitals, nurses, etc. And he wanted to have me express to you his appreciation for you being on the show and also his regret of not being able to be here with you.

KEYES: I hope that you'll convey my thoughts to him and my prayers. And hope that he and his family will be able to get through this and his grandfather will be okay. That they will be find themselves strengthened and reinforced by God's blessings.

JOSEPH: Actually, I will do so. You know, Sir, that if you start continuing to talk crazy like, I think the socialists might come in and shut the airwaves down. We're mentioning God, prayer, thoughts of being with him, etc., etc. Actually, I . . .

KEYES: [laughter] We laugh about things like that . . . I was just talking to someone today about the sad business of a valedictorian in Colorado, I think it was, who was just disciplined because she had mentioned God and talked about her reliance on Christ in her valedictory speech. And they censored her and told her that she couldn't continue, and so forth. It's really gotten to that point, . . .

JOSEPH: Holy, cow.

KEYES: . . . and unhappily this is not a joke. We are seeing that kind of censorship and persecution.

JOSEPH: You know, that's very interesting. That's a great lead in to what we are going to talk about, because I'd really like to get your thoughts and your insights on, "What is the proper role of government?," and you know, from a Constitutionalist's standpoint what those things are.

And we have about a minute and a half before we go into break. As I allow you to think about that, I just want to share with you an experience the very first time I experienced Alan Keyes. And when we come back from the break, we'll talk a little more about the proper role of government.

I had been out of the country about two years on a mission that I was serving, a religious mission for the LDS Church, and when I got back into the country, I started kind of paid attention to my surroundings, what was going on with politics and government, etc., and I think that there was on C-SPAN there was a debate between you and another gentleman. And I just have to say that I had no idea about what the most of the things that you were talking about. All's I know is you were trouncing the guy intellectually and that you were also making complete sense with everything that you had said.

And so, again, it is a great honor for us to have you on the show, and I really look forward to at the backside of this break talking about what the proper role of government is. What it's doing and what it should be doing.

So, if you could stick with us, Mr. Keyes, we will be back in about 22 seconds.

KEYES: Okay.

JOSEPH: You are listening to Free Capitalist Radio. Stick on the lines. We look forward to talking to you.


JOSEPH: Well, welcome back. We are talking to, Mr. Alan Keyes. I'd like to bring him back on the line. Mr. Keyes, you there with us, Sir?

KEYES: I'm here.

JOSEPH: Excellent. I'd like to read one thing to you, and I'd like to get your response on that and also what you think is the proper role of government. And let's see here . . . Frederick Bastiat . . . and I think I said that right, but I know that you speak French. Did I pronounce his name correct?

KEYES: I think it would be Bästyä'.

JOSEPH: Bästyä' Okay

KEYES: -t I a t Right?

JOSEPH: Exactly.

Frederick Bastiat, he said this, "Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men had made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."

I understand that one of the things that you are for is returning government to its proper role under the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Why don't you expound for us just a little bit your thoughts on Bastiat and, you know, returning government to its proper role?

KEYES: I think that's vital., especially in our society. We begin with a concept that's clear even in the Constitution of the United States that sometimes is forgotten these days, because people talk about the president, or the congress, or the courts as if they're our rulers. And that's not true.

The sovereign in this country is the people of the United States. They are the ones who appoint the representatives, appoint the president through elections, and so forth. And they are the folks, who, as we know through the preamble to the Constitution, ordain and establish the Constitution of government in this country. That means that government exists as a tool or instrument of the people, and it is the work of the people, the goods of the people, the initiatives of the people, the enterprises of the people, and so forth, that are to be respected. The rights of the people to be secured and preserved--that's the aim of government as was stated in the Declaration of Independence.

So, in the first instance, society is not built by government. It is built by people who build their families, who strengthen the future for their children, who build their enterprises and farms and other things that help to produce the goods and services that flow through society. Government exists in order to do those things which people need to do in common, starting, of course, with the defense of the society and extending to other things that might respond to emergencies, build infrastructure, things of that kind that the community does working together to provide some of the material conditions that are needed to facilitate the work that individuals are doing through their free association, which is the main activity that takes place in the society.

Those who believe that the government should be the leader, the dominator, that its activities, in fact, are the ones that express the heart and soul of the people, I think they're totally wrong. And in point of fact, government should be in that subordinate and secondary role as an instrument of the people to do those things and work in those areas where they are pursuing common goals and objectives.

And we've gotten away from that. We've gotten toward a system where government is redistributing wealth, handing people a livelihood, and things of this kind. And in the process, as we're noticing, our government has been neglecting some of its major responsibilities, including, for instance, the responsibility to provide secure borders for the country.

So, we get into crises in one area, which it is the government's business, because the government's been trying to dominate in areas that properly ought to belong to the people in the private sector.

JOSEPH: I agree. I think that . . . and again, I think I have an elementary understanding of what the proper role of government is, but I understand that we have certain unalienable rights. That's what it says in the Declaration of Independence. It says that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So, my understanding is government should protect against the loss of life, property, and liberty.

I think John Locke said something very interesting. He said, "Nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself. And nobody has an absolute, arbitrary power over himself or over any other to destroy his own life or take away the life or property of another."

This goes back to the point we were just talking about. Government is only what our individual and unalienable rights are delegated to large body to the protection of the loss of those rights.

Am I correct, Sir?

KEYES: That's exactly right. And I think one of the problems we have today is that politics ought to be built on that understanding, where your aim is ultimately to protect the liberty of the people, to protect the institution, through which acting together the people can govern themselves in such a way as to secure their rights, their property.

Beginning, for instance, with the parents' rights and authority of parents over their children. The belonging that goes in the family circle and is grounded upon freedom of conscience and the right to worship God and follow the beliefs of ones' heart and conscience in that respect.

All of those things are part of the unalienable rights--the key possession of the people that is the aim of government to secure. And I think that keeping that in mind, we realize that government exists to work for that common good, not to usurp or to substitute for individual efforts, but, in fact, to work in those common areas whereby doing so we will secure the environment that's needed so that individuals in their families and free associations can achieve the results that their goals and aspirations prescribe.

But we have now, I think, moved in a direction dominated by a lot of the leftists and socialists in which their understanding of what those objectives ought to be is to be implemented with government power and on a basis that disregards both the claims and the dictates of the conscience and free understanding of individuals. And I think that that is destroying liberty in this society in a whole lot of ways, spearheaded by an abusive court system.

JOSEPH: Absolutely.

KEYES: And at the same time, we see the same government in pursuit of the narrow special interests of those who dominate that government and then leaving certain things like the security of our borders and the identity of our people prey to assault from outside the nation and the society, rather than respecting what I believe is the clear will and common sense conscience of the American people to protect and preserve those things.

JOSEPH: Correct. And this leads to another good question in my mind. Which is, in your opinion what do you think is the greatest danger that the United States is facing right now? Because there's a whole lot of issues out there, and I think a lot of people and politicians have become very issue oriented. But in your opinion, Sir, what is the greatest danger that America is facing?

KEYES: Well, I think that you can trace a lot of the things we are facing to one root, and that is the threat that is assaulting and destroying the moral identity of our people. Our identity as a people rests on the very principles that you were articulating. "We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That governments exist to secure these rights." The concept of rights, but also the concept of those rights coming from a transcendent source, the Creator, God. This is fundamental to the identity of the American people, and fundamental to those institutions which in common, then, become both our treasure and our heritage as a people.

And I think we see in various ways, on the domestic front in education, the assault on conscience and religious faith, the attempt to banish all reference to the Creator who is the source of our rights, from our politics and our public policy. And also the loss of the courageous will to defend the institutions, to defend the national identity against those encroachments from abroad which are represented not only in things like terrorism, but also in the quiet invasion that has been taking place in the form of illegal immigration that ignores the need, not just to have people coming to our country, but to have them come in order to become part of this common effort to institute and preserve liberty for our people.

I think those kinds of things are all rooted in that same fundamental threat--that loss of our moral identity and the sense of the importance of defending and preserving it.

JOSEPH: Um huh. Excellent. You know, we have a very common phrase around here. We say, "Trained, taught, educated." And individuals, for the most part, I've found, are trained, taught, and educated that they think what they're rights are are actual freedoms. And they think that they can just be given or taken away by the government, whether it's on a local, state, or federal basis. And I've find that this is extremely dangerous, because then when somebody comes along that just panders to whatever it is that that person thinks should happen, they start creating all these laws that further just take away our freedoms. They cut into it little by little.

KEYES: I think one of the problems is that because they want to manipulate people, I see a lot of leaders, politicians, and others in our society who want to redefine freedom--not as self-government, not as responsibility, not as self-discipline, not as the ability to pursue hope and opportunity in various ways on the basis of a disciplined choice made in conscience that they then will pursue. No. They want to define it as the right to indulge every selfish passion, every hedonistic inclination, and then have the government deal with the consequences and have the government take care of you when your life is ruined by your inability to take care of yourself.

And that redefinition equates free passion with freedom, that equates the slavery of passion with liberty, that actually leads the people down the road to destroy itself. And that's where I think we are headed.

JOSEPH: Yep. Absolutely. So, the real question is we can sit here and talk about all of the issues and all of the things that are wrong, but the fact of the matter is this country--I'm not down on America--the United States is still, in my opinion, the freest nation in the whole entire world. I think that we have the most amount of abilities, the most amount of liberty, the most amount of freedom to go out there and achieve.

So, the real question becomes, "What is it that we can actually do?" We always ask, "So, what?" So what are we going to do about it? How can we overcome these things?

KEYES: I would say that the first thing we have to recognize and that a lot of folks want to forget is that freedom isn't self-indulgence. It is, in fact, the courageous willingness to take responsibility for yourself, for your family and community, and for the future that folks can build together.

And that means that the foundation of rational liberty is not somebody coming and saying, "I'm going to give you this, and I'm going to create an opportunity for you to indulge that, and so forth and so on."

JOSEPH: Right.

KEYES: It's people coming together themselves, deciding what will serve the rational objective that best reflects their potential and the kind of things that they will be able to achieve, and working on a disciplined basis to do that they then will fashion for themselves institutions and laws that allow them to fulfill that potential, rather than expecting that to come somehow from the power of government or any other external power.

That, I think, is the real vision of liberty in this country, and it's the one that has built the nation. And it continues to provide, I think, the key source of energy that goes into our economics, that goes into our scientific research, that goes into expanding the frontiers of opportunity for our people. But that's not one that some of our elites are comfortable with, because that means you got to trust people to take the initiative in their own lives. And respect them when they come forward to play a role in their society, rather than act as if, no, that's for government to do.

JOSEPH: Yep. And sometimes that's extremely difficult to do.

Now, we're coming up on a break, Mr. Keyes, and I know that you had graciously scheduled out an hour . . . or excuse me . . . a half hour of your time. So my question is this: we're coming up on a break, is there a possibility to stick with us through the next break and continue this conversation?

KEYES: I think I'll have time for one more break. Yes.

JOSEPH: Excellent. That will be fantastic. Sir, we'll be right back with you at the back side of this break. Everybody stay tuned. We have Mr. Alan Keyes on the line. We'll be back with you to talk about freedom, principles, and the Constitution here on Free Capitalist Radio.

JOSEPH: Welcome back to Free Capitalist Radio. Again, this is Gabriel Joseph sitting in for the Free Capitalist himself, Mr. Rick Koerber, as he is away on a family emergency, currently.

We have on line, Mr. Alan Keyes. Alan, are you still with us?

KEYES: Yes, I am. Hi.

JOSEPH: Fantastic. Let me read one other thing, and I'm quoting to you . . . I guess I should source where I am, where it is I'm quoting from. This is "Proper Role of Government." It was published by Ezra Taft Benson, former Secretary of Agriculture, I believe, in the Dwight D. Eisenhower cabinet

And he said this. He said, "I believe we Americans should use extreme care before lending our support to any proposed government program. We should fully recognize that government is no play thing. As George Washington warned, 'Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.'" Ezra Taft Benson went on to say, "It is an instrument of force and unless our conscience is clear that we would not hesitate to put a man to death, put him in jail, or forcibly deprive him of his property for failing to obey any given law, we should oppose it."

So, my question is this. We talk a lot about principles around here, and these principles we've defined, and we've gotten from the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence, etc. And, I think, this goes to our point that we've just been talking about, which is: What is a good standard for law? What's a good standard for the proper role of government? And I submit that it is the founding documents of our country--the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

What do you think, Sir?

KEYES: I think that's exactly right, but we must understand them, as you were just doing, in the spirit in which they were framed. The understanding that the aim is, in fact, to defend this sphere of liberty. But that every time you have moved government into the dominate position you are, in fact, exchanging liberty for force. And that means that only in those instances where you absolutely need to put that force to work should you be using it, because the more you expand the sphere of government, the more you restrict the sphere of liberty. And this is a great problem.

Now, there are certain areas where that use of force is inevitable and appropriate, especially when dealing, for instance, with the situation of the nation defending itself, in the international environment, where you have to deal with all kinds of folks who will be hostile to your way of life and envious of the things you can achieve.

The defense and security of the country, therefore, becomes the mental task of the common government that we all fear in the nation as a whole. And those things that are like that, where we are dealing with emergencies that threaten our physical survival, and where necessary that we all pull together in order to deal with those dangers. Those are the kinds of things, which provide, in my opinion, the paradigm for government action.

But where we've gone wrong in recent years is to believe that because a thing is good to be done, it should be done by government. Because we have a charitable impulse, it should be done by government; because we want to care for people in certain situations and help provide opportunities and build up families and economic situations for poor people and others, it should be done by the government. That's false, in point of fact.

JOSEPH: Correct.

KEYES; And I've always believed that not only is it false in a common sense point of view in that you're using the forceful restriction of liberty in order to pursue these goals, when liberty would actually pursue them better, but it also contradicts the understanding of true compassion and charity which ought to come from choice and not coercion.

JOSEPH: That's correct. That's correct.

KEYES: If it's going to really going to reflect the love that ought to exist between human beings.

JOSEPH: You know, I often give an example, which is this. I am forced through my property taxes and a lot of other taxes to give away a portion of my labor, which is the result of it is money. So, a portion of my labor every single day goes towards paying taxes, and I have to give it up by force. Now, those taxes or those resources are then decided upon how to be used by just a very small select number of individuals. For instance, in my community there are a whole lot of young children, and I know in my community there is a lack of funding for sports and also for parks, but my argument is that I could get together with other likeminded and self-interested individuals in my community and talk about how we could spend our money. And if the government did not forcibly come and take it from us, we could build parks, we could build these community centers, we could fund the sports programs for our children, and if I could get enough individuals that thought the same way, if the government didn't take that money--it's not like it just disappeared, it's not like it wouldn't happen. It would still happen. I would just need to organize it

And I think that goes to what we're talking about--not just necessarily just with taxes, but with the government coming in by law and people saying, "It's up to the government to make it happen." We have abdicated our responsibility to our individual selves and to our families and to our communities.

KEYES: Well, I think that's true. And I think that the more of the resources of the society that you put under the control of government, the more you have substituted coercion for liberty. When it comes to dealing with the challenges of the society, and also taking advantage of and building on the opportunity that are offered in the society. As a people who have already experienced the great strength and abundance that can come from our properly respected liberty, I think we ought to be very cautious, very wary, very resistant to the temptation to believe that we're going to get something for nothing from government power.

And at the same time, I think we ought to be reminded by the kinds of events we've seen in the world in the last several years that the real function of government needed in order to provide for our physical security, needed in order to defend our identity against the encroachments of those who would try to destroy even our understanding the foundations of our liberty. That kind of thing is not going to take care of itself. And if we're devoting resources to things that government oughtn't to be doing, the real functions that it ought to be taken care are going to be neglected, and we'll find ourselves weakened and afraid to all kinds of dangers in the world.

And I'd would just say that I'm going to be coming into Provo tomorrow to talk to this immigration crisis and the crisis of border security, which is a key area where I think we are suffering from this very fact. We've had leaders who have been so busy trying to bribe people with bloated budgets intended to provide all kinds of benefits for special interests and narrow understanding, so that they can fit together their coalitions of political power that they have utterly neglected the real common good that the government ought to be serving, starting with the security of the physical entity that is the United States.

So, we have a president, six years into his term, who gives a speech where he looks people in the eye and says, "We do not have control of our borders."

JOSEPH: Right. Which is a problem.

KEYES: And thinking to myself, "You're in charge of the national government. That's one of your prime responsibilities, and you're telling us you haven't done your job?" I think that's a disgrace.

JOSEPH: Absolutely. And not only is it one of the prime responsibilities, it's one of the only limited responsibilities that is just laid in plain language in the Constitution that the national government has responsibility to do. So, I agree with you.

KEYES: That's right. I mean, when you have a government that wants to meddle in those things that people can better do for themselves, that want to substitute for actions of heart and passion that people could better do responding to the motives of their own conscience, than to the coercive force of government, then you get the government like the one where all kinds of resources are going to be manipulated in order to pursue what ends up being the political agenda of ambition of our political leaders.

And meanwhile, serious things that we must in common preserve, like the integrity and security of our borders--utterly in disrepair, utterly neglected with the result that millions of people come into the country, illegal aliens, who actually don't have the intention of joining in a constructive way, a great many of them--not just in the economic project, but in the project of liberty which requires, I think, understanding and a real commitment of heart, which is one of the reasons we have always tried to be careful and to make sure people are prepared for citizenship. We're neglecting these fundamentals now, because we have leaders who are so interested in using government powers to garner what they can for their own personal advantage of politics and ambition.

JOSEPH: Correct. You know, a lot of people would argue that the 16th Amendment is one of the greatest, I would say, destructions to our Constitution and one of the greatest destructions to our individual liberties being, you know, the tax code and whatnot.

But the point we're talking about right now, I would actually argue that the 17th Amendment, which is probably one of the greatest mistakes of all history, because what it did is--and you probably know far more than I do, Sir--but it took the two houses of legislature, or basically the two sides of our legislative body, the Senate and the House of Representatives, and it made both of them just answer directly to popular choice. So, you have both sides that are now pandering to popular choice.

KEYES: The sad thing is, though, the Senate was supposed to represent the states.

JOSEPH: Right.

KEYES: Which is to say that level of government closer to the people, more under control of people at the grassroots, and more reflective of the kinds of concerns, diverse concerns that can exist in a country as large and diverse as ours. When you went to the system we now have, where they cut out the state legislatures that have originally chosen the senators, it meant that the governments, the state governments were no longer represented. As entities then, they no longer have a say. I think that has resulted in a destruction of federalism, because there's nobody at the national level in the legislature committed to defend that level of government, which is closer to the people.

And I think that is a very bad thing that has had very bad consequences for this country. And I think it's part of the reason why we see the neglect that we do in certain vital areas. Do you think that if the senators in this country actually represented the interests of their state, you'd have somebody like John McCain in Arizona pushing to destroy the sovereignty of our people, to undermine our identity, to destroy our quality of life, economically, in order to champion a cause in this awful junk bill they just passed out of the Senate on immigration, that, in fact, serves the narrow interest of a few in the economic arena and even caters to foreign elites that have been oppressing their people in Mexico from time immemorial. This is a disgrace, and yet we see it, I think, because we have allowed, through the kinds of things we've talked about, an upset in the balance in our federal constitution. So, that the real interests of people in their states are not being respected, and now that has become a willingness on the part of our leaders utterly to disregard the common sense of our people on vital issues, which is what they're doing when it comes to our borders right now.

JOSEPH: All I have to say is, "Amen, Sir." Absolutely, I agree with you. I have a gentleman that's on the line. And I know that he knows you, and I think you know him. Do you know Don Sills?

KEYES: I believe I do. Yes.

JOSEPH: Yeah. He has a question for you. Do you mind if I bring him on, Sir?

KEYES: No, not at all.

JOSEPH: Excellent. Don, how are you, Sir?

SILLS: Fine. I'm doing great. Thank you.

JOSEPH: No problem. You have a question for Mr. Keyes.

SILLS: Yes, Sir, I do. Alan, it's a pleasure.

KEYES: Hi, Don. How are you?

SILLS: It's been a while. I was president of the Coalition for Religious Freedom in D.C., and worked with Bob Grant and with the American Freedom Coalition. And you've got a whole team of friends back there.

KEYES: Very good.

SILLS: I was actually on the phone with Bob a little bit ago, so I send you his regards.

KEYES: Tell him I said, "Hi."

SILLS: I'll certainly do that.

One of the things we're involved in right now is establishing--and I have not been able to listen to the entire program--but the establishment of the Free Capitalist Project where we're putting forums in cities all across America. With our goal of 300,000 members by the end of this year teaching exactly what you're talking about, and that's the basic fundamentals of a free enterprise and a sovereign nation.

So, my question to you comes to the area of economics. And that is one of the major problems that we've got in America is the economic downturn of the American family. We don't know what to do. They don't know what to do.

And consequently, the Lord seems to have implanted in Rick Koerber some very insightful information. And so, I'll tell you what I would be reaching from you, Sir, would be able to understand and find out your take on establishing local community gatherings on a weekly basis, studying the principles--you know, the material of Cleon Skousen and the others that we've working for years with. But to be able to present a solid package of teaching people how to get out of debt.

So, my question is, "Are wasting our time or do you think it's a valid project?"

KEYES: First, I think it is a valid project, because I think that one of the things that has been encouraged in our society is a willingness of people to kind of sacrifice the future to present satisfaction. And that encouragement that exists in our society now to have people forgetting about the consequences and just putting themselves in situations where ultimately they're not able to deal with those consequences when they should really be thinking, not in terms of spending to get, but investing to build.


KEYES: And that concept has been lost in this country and is deeply harmful, I think, to people over the long term in their individual and family life.

Another thing that is a prerequisite, though, is to understand, and I think it was mentioned briefly a minute ago, was to understand that our tax system at the moment is a system that, I think, that actually puts us in the position of being deprived of control of our income. We essentially have to wait until people in the government decide how much we're going to be allowed to keep, before we know how much we're going to have to save and invest for the future. And that's because the income tax is a system incompatible with real liberty. And I have campaigned over many years now with, I think, growing company in America to abolish the income tax and move us back to an understanding of taxation that would more reflect what the founders of this country originally conceived, because as many people realize, as the Constitution was originally written, there could be no income tax at the federal level. And I think it was a grave error to allow ourselves to be duped into believing that some income tax at the federal level was tolerable.

JOSEPH: Excellent. I understand, Mr. Keyes, that you are a proponent of having a national sales tax, instead of an income tax.

KEYES: I believe that that kind of tax in which you basically enter into the market place in a way that will be visible, so that government can append to the cost of certain goods and services the cost that is needed to maintain that market place. So, that instead of government coming in to take money out of the private people's pockets and then benefit other private individuals, no, it is fair that we should be asked to foot the bill, basically, for what is needed to maintain the public areas and the things that we must do in common to maintain a functioning a market place and a functioning economy. That's perfectly fair and government has that proper role in terms of policing and the courts and other things that are absolutely vital to economic interchange. We ought to pay the price, but we ought to know what it is. It ought to be built into the goods we buy just like the other elements of the costs that go into those goods. Right now, it's taken directly out of our income, and we're actually in the situation where instead of having the government have to lower the price and make some restrictions when things are going bad--do you realize government actually grows and gains in power when we're badly off?

JOSEPH: Absolutely.

KEYES: That's the way this system has been done. So, I think we ought to return a more market oriented system and something that would have the government deriving its income from a tax that is part of the price of the goods we pay. So, that when they start to overtax us, we'll know who's doing it and what the costs are.

JOSEPH: Absolutely. Absolutely.

KEYES: I think that's the way we need to go.

JOSEPH: Excellent. Don, I appreciate your call. We're running into about a minute before the break comes up. So, I appreciate it, Sir.

SILLS: I understand. Alan, welcome to Utah.

KEYES: Thank you very much. Always glad to be here.

SILLS: Talk to you later. Thanks. Bye, Gabe.

JOSEPH: Thank you, Don. Mr. Keyes, again, you had mentioned that you're going to be at the Provo Library. I believe that you're going to be in the ballroom at 6:30 p.m. tomorrow. Correct?

KEYES: Yes, that's right. We're having an event. I believe it starts at 6:30 and we'll have several speakers, including a representative of the Minutemen, Carmen Mercer is going to be there, who is the national spokeswoman. I'm giving a speech. We're focusing on the crisis of immigration, but I'll also be putting it in the context that we've been discussing today in terms of how it is related to the crisis of constitutional liberty and self-government in this country.

JOSEPH: Excellent.

KEYES: I hope folks will turn out, because I think it's going to be both important and vital right now. People need to get involved on this front before it's too late.

JOSEPH: Right. We'll continue to mention that through our show. Mr. Keyes, you have been most gracious being with us today, and I certainly do appreciate your time.

KEYES: Thank you. I appreciate it. God bless you.

JOSEPH: No problem. Take care, Sir. We'll be back after the break.

Terms of use

All content at, unless otherwise noted, is available for private use, and for good-faith sharing with others — by way of links, e-mail, and printed copies.

Publishers and websites may obtain permission to re-publish content from the site, provided they contact us, and provided they are also willing to give appropriate attribution.